Re: regress versus fit - force throughzero/forceconstant term to zero

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg61603] Re: regress versus fit - force throughzero/forceconstant term to zero*From*: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>*Date*: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 05:46:13 -0400 (EDT)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

On 10/22/05 at 5:11 AM, chris.chiasson at gmail.com (Chris Chiasson) wrote: >It seems like the diagnostics returned by Regress are okay, but >they don't have any significance arithmetic ability. Looks like I >will be doing each problem twice... once for the regression report, >and once for the "significance arithmetic" available with Fit. >David, do you work for WRI? You said you looked at the "code" for >Regress... I was thinking about filing a bug report or RFE to have >Regress' BestFit return the same result as Fit for "bignum"/"sig. >arithmetic" inputs. Good idea y/n? I don't see much reason to have significance arithmetic supported by Regress. I would assume if you are using Regress you are doing a least squares fit to some data set whoose elements consist of meaurements assumed to be the true value plus an unkown amount of error. The summary report provided by Regress gives you estimates of the uncertainty in each of the fitted parameters. What would be the point of tracking significance for the orginal data through this calculation? -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: regress versus fit - force throughzero/forceconstant term to zero***From:*Chris Chiasson <chris.chiasson@gmail.com>